Infinite Loop —

AMD and Apple? It could happen with the iMac

Ars takes a look at the rumor that Apple may use AMD CPUs in its Macs. …

The Apple rumor du jour is that everyone's favorite tablet maker is considering AMD for a spot in the Mac lineup. AppleInsider alleges that AMD execs have been pitching Apple on the chipmaker's upcoming product roadmap, and that the two parties are in "advanced discussions" about putting AMD inside some Apple products.

On its face, this rumor might seem pretty silly—the Mac is a premium PC family at a premium price, so there's not really a place for a value vendor like AMD in it. Or is there? Stranger things have happened, and Apple can't be happy about having its 13" Macbook Pro caught in the crossfire of the Intel/NVIDIA DMI bus licensing dispute. Apple, as we've seen time and time again, likes to have options.

It certainly makes sense that Apple would have regular talks with alternate suppliers for a critical part of its platform—that's just good business. And if Apple issues a nondenial denial of the AMD rumor, then they may be trying to put pressure on Intel to shape up. Furthermore, because Intel is no longer allowed to essentially pay computer makers to use its chips exclusively, and Apple never got marketing rebates from Intel anyway because it doesn't participate in Intel's logo program, Intel doesn't have any real financial leverage on Apple. Indeed, given Apple's relationship with ARM and NVIDIA, AMD is the only major Intel competitor that's missing from its product mix.

So it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Apple and AMD are having some sort of talks and there are no consequences for Apple's using one of Intel's rivals for some of its CPU needs. So the big question is, where could Apple find a place for AMD in its lineup?

AI speculates that AMD may end up in Apple's portables, but that's just crazy talk. Sure, Apple spent a lot of engineering effort on getting its own new-from-the-ground-up version of NVIDIA's Optimus tech out the door. But at the end of the day, the hacked-up, Optimus-like solution that Apple has for portables now is actually great from a performance/watt perspective for mobiles. It combines the leading performance/watt mobile CPU with the leading mobile discrete GPU, and it's a shame that the solution doesn't fit into the 13" Macbook Pro (more on that topic on Sunday, though). AMD/ATI would not have been able to offer an IGP + discrete GPU switching solution that matches it in terms of performance and power efficiency (though an AMD-designed alternative would've been cheaper for Apple).

No, the real place where Intel's strategy of putting an IGP/northbridge in the same package as CPU is a real problem is on the desktop.

Where to put it: the iMac

Given that Intel has the performance crown for servers and the performance/watt crown in mobile, the most likely place for Apple to use AMD is in the iMac.

Right now, the iMac is still on the 45nm Core 2 Duo. The obvious Intel replacement for the iMac's C2D is Intel's dual-core, 32nm Clarkdale family, either the Core i5 or the Core i3, both of which have been out since the start of the year. But the new Core i5 Clarkdales don't really improve on the older, quad-core, 45nm "Lynnfield" part that's are currently in the 27" iMac, because the Clarkdale i5 is kind of a dog.

The entire Clarkdale family has two features that Apple—and anyone else looking for maximum performance and minimum waste—is going to hate: 1) the memory controller has moved back off the CPU die, and 2) there's a IGP and northbridge in the package with the CPU. The off-die memory controller means that Clarkdale's memory latency stinks, and the in-package GPU/northbridge means that you're paying for a sub-par Intel IGP that you really don't want to use if you're building a performance desktop.

(Seriously, Intel, just give us a straight 32nm shrink of Lynnfield for the performance desktop segment.)

The upshot of all this is that, with the possible exception of HTPC builders, anyone who's considering putting Clarkdale in a performance or mid-range desktop would really be better off with a quad-core CPU from AMD, including Apple. The cheaper, 32nm, non-Lynnfield part of the Core i5 lineup just isn't that attractive right now.

We're not claiming that we'll actually see an AMD-based iMac, but it wouldn't surprise us. Intel has left the door open for AMD's Phenom X4 to walk right through, and it's possible that Apple will go ahead and invite the X4 in.

Also makes sense on the mac-mini, it is the most affordable of its computers and makes sense using an amd cpu with an amd gpu, instead of using the intel option. Given that apple seems to be pushing nvidia and amd gpus through all its computer line.

This is unlikely to happen anytime soon (10.6 I mean). To run OS X on AMD CPU one would have to patch pretty much every executable on the system (i.e. cpuids need to be patched). One way of doing this is on the fly in the kernel (as some modified kernels have done) another is to just brute force in one the entire system.

I haven't bought an Intel chip, or a computer or laptop with an Intel chip, since the early 90's. In fact, I was about to buy a new one when Intel pulled the infamous 'We'll sell chips with a floating point error we know about, and replace them later if people complain' in order to beat AMD to the market by 6 months.

I've never had a complaint about my AMD chips, I've loved every one, and never had any issues with any of them (granted, I know people who say the same thing about Intel chips). But, to me, I'd rather give my $'s to AMD than Intel, if for no other reason than Intel's business practices (like, the fact I never know if they are selling me a good chip or a chip with a bug they know about but figure it's cheaper to replace it if I find out than wait 6 months and sell me a good chip).

This is unlikely to happen anytime soon (10.6 I mean). To run OS X on AMD CPU one would have to patch pretty much every executable on the system (i.e. cpuids need to be patched). One way of doing this is on the fly in the kernel (as some modified kernels have done) another is to just brute force in one the entire system.

You think some one(Apple) with full knowledge of the source code couldn't do it? I have no doubt they have builds running on AMD, even if only to show off to the Intel sales team when it comes time to renegotiate prices.

I'm not sure about the iMac, but I could certainly see it for the Mini. Maybe not the Phenom II, but the Athlon II X2, X3 or X4 would be quite reasonable. Good performance, inexpensive, and enough options to keep them happy for both upselling and not competing with higher ticket items. I've personally got no use for a new Mac right now (not going to replace my old G4 anytime soon), but as a long-time fan of AMD I would certainly like to see this.

AMD chips are by no means as power efficient as Intel ones at the same performance level.

I'm betting on no change in chips until the Clarkdale replacement (i5/i7 with no GPU) comes out with low enough power usage to fit into the 21.5" iMac's power envelope, or Intel's integrated GPU beats the nVidia 9400.

Before then, we may see iMacs and Mini's with the Geforce 320M like the 13" Macbook Pro has...

just a matter of timing - AMD was preparing for this moment for a while, OpenGL and OpenCL have been in the Mac OS for a while; AMD and is ready (CPUGPU). AMD's Liano is the only chip that can work it efficiently- Intel will have to buy AMD licences to compete.... asH

It really wouldn't be all that surprising to see it in the iMac. With how great the AMD/ATI midrange graphics are how Intel's midrange having the little desire as pointed out in the article, why not just go all AMD/ATI? Maybe Apple could strike up a deal by using all AMD cpu/gpu/chipset and drop the price making the iMac even more appealing.

AMD chips are by no means as power efficient as Intel ones at the same performance level.

I'm betting on no change in chips until the Clarkdale replacement (i5/i7 with no GPU) comes out with low enough power usage to fit into the 21.5" iMac's power envelope, or Intel's integrated GPU beats the nVidia 9400. .

They're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that. The existing Radeon 4870 in the iMac beats the snot out of a Nvidia 9400.

But I have to agree. The current iMac line is smoking fast. Stepping down to slower, less-power-efficient AMD CPUs would be a head-scratcher.

AMD chips are by no means as power efficient as Intel ones at the same performance level.

I haven't been watching AMD vs Intel for a few years now, but this was my immediate question. Unless AMD has recently made serious progress on process relative to Intel, it just doesn't seem that likely to me. Apple's always about the form factor and heat dissipation, they're seriously sensitive on this issue.

iPirate wrote:

>Apple, as we've seen time and time again, likes to have options.

Even though they dont like giving any to their customers...or developers.

Unlike even 6-7years ago, you can run windows on it (and Apple will help you) and most Linux OS'es. The HW is much less closed down than it was just a few years ago (the only thing they have taken away is changing batteries, but theyve made changing Hard Disks and Memory much easier).

They are contributing in open source projects more than ever before (Webkit, Clang, OpenCL...etc).

Now, if you were an iPhone OS fan, your statement would be true. But Apple is certainly far more open on the Mac side than it was even a few years ago.

Why does power efficiency matter for a desktop? (Unless its ridiculously disparate to the point where its costing a boatload in your electricity bills, but I doubt thats the case here).

Power efficiency is becoming more of a concern but controlling thermal envelopes would certainly help the iMacs. The current lineup is running hot again, and each time they go through this hotter phase things aren't so good for the mainboard/gpu/HD a few years out...

At the same time I don't see the current iMacs as being slow or dogs either, there's no reason for them to upgrade to Lynnfield because Clarkdale was SUPPOSED to be a dog for entry level/secretarial/office etc systems. Lynnfield is the desktop cpu for mainstream and hence the iMac is a natural fit. Clarksfield (45nm Lynnfield in mobile format) is rather hot & high energy so Arrandale is a great fit (Clarkdale with TURBO in mobile format and used in the new Macbook Pro refresh 15" & 17") especially as it's not turbo locked and has much higher frequencies than Lynnfield. Dual core Arrandale is quite competitive, but the desktop version is purposefully crippled... Of course it didn't have to be but Intel would have had 2 competing desktop chips within 7 months of each other.

I'm not sure that I see the result of this as AMD's 'way in' though, the integrated GPU discussion hits a lot closer to the mark since the current iMac already uses the last-gen mobile parts (4850m etc). But to be honest I was amazed to find out they were using mobile parts to begin with, with the 27" screen having the pixel resolution it has the card it ships with is quite pixel fill limited for anything gpu intensive.

Actually, to me it seems that AMD might really find a place in the iMac - because of Liano:- power efficiency is not THAT important (though it does affect upfront costs too - more cooling needed, more powerful power supply, etc)- graphics power is important - AMD's integrated solution (Liano) should have much higher performance than Intel's (Sandy Bridge) and support both OpenCL and OpenGL4.- CPU performance that can be obtained from a quad-core K10.5 should be enough- having an integrated solution might lower costs, and the previous two points make AMD's integrated solution much more attractive- As Apple does a lot of system/driver development and integration work itself and controls the platform very efficiently, AMD's platform performance issues (bad AHCI drivers, slow boot, general performance, etc.) should be less of a problem

The switch to AMD parts wouldn't happen in the sort term but something offered a bit further down the road. As such it would be foolish to take a look AMD's current line as a reason to migrate some product lines over. Rather it is AMD's road map that would really compel Apple. So what does AMD have down the line that Apple could use in its line up?

The MacBook Air will likely continue to use Intel chips. Power consumption is key for MacBook Air's ultra slim design. I just have a hard time seeing AMD's Llano or Bobcat designs fitting in. Also that can be taken literally as Intel is offering Apple BGA packaged chips with fewer IO pins to reduce physical size on the motherboard. AMD does have the competing Turion line but those CPU's are lagging behind a bit.

The hybrid CPU+CPU chip code named Llano would make an excellent chip for use inside the Mac Mini, low end iMac, and MacBook lines. While having an integrated GPU, will likely fit between a Radeon 5570 and Radeon 5670 in terms of performance. Not the greatest in terms of performance but a still a leap over the current nVidia based chipset solutions and future Intel integrated graphics.

I continue to see the MacBook Pro to utilize a discrete graphics card. This negates some of the value Llano would offer. What would be ideal here is a low power, 32 nm version of Lynnfield from Intel. Such a chip would be custom for Apple as there is no plan on Intel's roadmaps. However, Intel looks to be offering Sandy Bridge mobile chips with integrated graphics next year. That puts both Llano and Sandybridge in the "overkill" category in terms of features. As such, I see Apple sticking with Intel due to the PCI-E link coming from the chip package.

The Mac Pro will migrate to AMD chips if Bulldozer is able to deliver on its performance claims next year. Socket G34 would likely be the platform of choice for additional CPU cores, sockets, and memory expansion. AMD right now has some socket G34 chips priced at relatively low levels for this market segment. $300 for an 8 core chip that is quad socket capable? Those are very, very attractive prices at the entry level but I doubt Apple would go quad socket for a workstation. Bulldozer's performance is just difficult to predict against Sandybridge here. However, Intel could sweeten the deal with some chipset advances. They look to be integrating USB 3.0 before AMD into the chipset and this high end sector will have a 10 Gbit ethernet option from Intel. PCI-E connectivity is an unknown from a chipset view but I believe that Intel will have an edge.

The aggressive pricing of the socket G34 chips would make AMD attractive for the Xserve line even if Bulldozer doesn't perform up to expectations. Scaling the number of sockets to four would likely counter any performance deficiencies. Other benefits like memory expansion and virtualization support would swing in AMD's favor in this market even without jumping to a quad socket system. The only ace up Intel's sleeve would be 10 Gbit ethernet support in their chipsets.

I'm sorry if its already been said I didn't get a chance to read all the posts. What I don't get is why did Apple completely eliminate PPC from its lineup. Considering the widespread use of PPC now in the gaming market, I think a Cell platform option makes sense. What was the point of 'universal binary' apps anyway? Seems like a lot of effort wasted on a temporary transition.

Considering the widespread use of PPC now in the gaming market, I think a Cell platform option makes sense.

Why? The Cell is a horrible processor for doing, well, anything. It's bad for most actual gaming tasks; it may be OK for feeding the GPU and sound, but it's terrible for actual thinking (due to in-order execution). It would be far worse for general-purpose GUI-type applications, where thinking is what they spend most of their time (when actively running) doing.

I haven't bought an Intel chip, or a computer or laptop with an Intel chip, since the early 90's. In fact, I was about to buy a new one when Intel pulled the infamous 'We'll sell chips with a floating point error we know about, and replace them later if people complain' in order to beat AMD to the market by 6 months.

But AMD's "we'll sell chips with a broken L3 controller and a range of other bugs that we know about and won't even replace them" is just fine and dandy?

AMD chips are by no means as power efficient as Intel ones at the same performance level.

Why does power efficiency matter for a desktop? (Unless its ridiculously disparate to the point where its costing a boatload in your electricity bills, but I doubt thats the case here).

The iMac design suffers serious problems from the heat produced by their components. If Apple would add another inch to the depth it'd be fine, but they refuse.

Thanks for the answer.

I am curious what you mean by design problems (not contesting, or being snarky, or anything...genuinely curious). I know that overheating was indeed an issue with the earlier generation imacs. Is this still the case? Do the components have a higher failure rate?

Anandtech's results simply don't show Clarkdale to be "kind of a dog".

Anand is all whiny about the memory latency due to moving the memory controller back off die. It's an utterly irrelevant complaint. Anand is comparing to previous Nehalems and regards it as a regression, but that's not the relevant comparison here. The memory latency is comparable to that of the Core 2 processor Apple's currently using in the low-end iMacs, so switching to Clarkdale is at worst a sideways move for memory latency. Everything else? It's a win. Price-wise, the Clarkdale parts cost about the same as the Core 2 parts Intel's currently using.

IOW, Clarkdale's just fine for the iMac.

Even the IGP is pretty respectable in the 661 part (the one with the extra fast HD Graphics). As for it not supporting OpenCL, I can't believe there's any technical reason for it--OpenCL seems to need D3D10 capabilities (that's what NVIDIA has, after all), and HD Graphics does that perfectly well. It might be that Intel's not written a driver to do it, but that's hardly the same thing.

This is unlikely to happen anytime soon (10.6 I mean). To run OS X on AMD CPU one would have to patch pretty much every executable on the system (i.e. cpuids need to be patched). One way of doing this is on the fly in the kernel (as some modified kernels have done) another is to just brute force in one the entire system.

You think some one(Apple) with full knowledge of the source code couldn't do it? I have no doubt they have builds running on AMD, even if only to show off to the Intel sales team when it comes time to renegotiate prices.

I am not saying anything about them not being able to do it. I can even do it (an have). It's simply a pain and a decent amount of work for them to make it work cleanly. For example, they would have to write a new power management system designed for the AMD chips (the power management in use right now is quite specific to the intel chips they ship).

They really have no reason right now to diversify their system. The Intel/Nvidia scandal is a pain, but in the end, didn't Apple end up making a much more power efficient system?

Jon, you're making the same mistake in your reasoning that many people made back in 2005 when Apple announced their decision to switch to Intel processors. You are basing your analysis on the CPUs that are available now - not the ones that are scheduled in the roadmap 6-12 months down the road.

Forget about the AMD processors you see in products today. They are never going to end up in any Mac. Not now, not ever. Apple has already planned which Intel processors that go into which Mac updates for the remainder of 2010. These things are planned at least 6-8 months in advance. (Oh, and you will get your Core i5 update to the 21,5 inch iMac later this year, don't worry).

IF and when Apple decides to use AMD processors in any of their Macs we're looking at spring 2011 at the earliest. It just so happens that this is also the time where AMD have reported that they intend to introduce their brand new "Bulldozer" CPU architecture in a line of 32 nm chips. A made-from-the-ground-up new line of CPU's that should give AMDs products a competitive edge again.

The iMac will probably be the last in Apple's product line to receive an AMD processor. MacBook Air is a more likely first candidate, actually. Read up on the stuff, and see if you can figure out why.

The big issue with AMD isn't their technology, it's their supply. If AMD releases the best processor tomorrow, Apple will want to snap up every last one. And AMD will destroy their new Apple relationship if they don't ship what Apple ordered - even if it means starving Dell, HP and other manufacturers of the same processor. And forget the retail market - it's Apple first of they go looking elsewhere.

It's what happened to PowerPC - Motorola didn't want to serve Apple. IBM couldn't fab chips fast enough in the quantities desired, so they went Intel. Intel, who has tons of fab capacity (so much that each OEM can specify what they want on their chips and have special runs to do so).

It's less about AMD's technology, but can AMD supply. If they cannot, AMD is hooped.